How is this uplifting?
69%? They must be counting Google searches. Just because it suggests AI on search results doesn’t mean people are reading it or using it.
My biggest pet peeve is that now regular algorhythms are being called AI. Or the other day someone asked me to share a ‘prompt’ for a google search. Wtf.
My nephew told me a friend of his has an AI enabled home. The friend has Alexa and Philips Hue.
Count +1 for people who are tired of having American surveys representing ALL PEOPLE in the titles.
And this is coming from a GenAI hater.
I’m more tired of hearing complaining about AI than I am about AI itself.
I am a scientist with a PhD in AI and I’m tired of hearing about it. It’s like how I imagine microbiologists would feel if their field was suddenly in the spotlight 24/7 purely because people with something to gain bombard the public with the benefits of biological weapons, which is claimed to be what microbiology is all about. All they wanted to do was learn about how the world works and maybe use that to prevent diseases or something.
The scientific field I love has been hijacked by people who don’t understand it and try to use one specific niche of the field to the detriment of the world. I can’t blame others for hating my field when all they see of it is this nonsense, I myself hate what is presented as AI just as much.
It feels unfair that we should be the ones to change, but sometimes I really wish we could rebrand the scientific field from the commercial products sharing its name. The problem is that they keep stealing our terms (like “agent”) for at best tangentially related concepts too (or present it as their specific product being what a general term means), so there’d be no end to it.
Only 30% have a negative opinion???
Either the survey is whacked, or I’m in a bad echo chamber.
It’s a common phenomenon. Look at how stunned so many people were when Trump won, for example. How could he have won? Everyone they knew voted against him! Everyone they talked to agreed that he was terrible! Except of course they were only talking to like-minded people, so they had no idea what “everyone” actually thought. Same thing applies to Trump supporters when he lost in 2020, they couldn’t believe it.
Places like the Fediverse are practically designed to become echo chambers. Look at the upvote/downvote mechanism, how’s the balance look in here for comments critical of AI versus comments that aren’t critical of it? I know karma is meaningless, even moreso here than on places like Reddit, but it’s still a psychological and social pressure declaring “you’re not one of us, your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.” Naturally the people who would post such unpopular opinions will tend to stop posting over time.
Heck, I’ve got my own personal stalker following me around lately posting about how much of a “troll” I am because I don’t toe the “AI bad” line. Disagreement with the local consensus is bad and wrong and I’m supposed to just shut up and go away I suppose. Doesn’t bother me, but people are social beings so I’m not surprised it bothers others.
You are in fact in a bad echo chamber.
The average person uses it to figure out how to write a birthday card with a funny message in it, cheat on a school assignment, or just use it to search like google.
Why would they have a negative opinion of that?
Because those things are not worth the damage it is doing.
In your personal opinion, and based on the articles you’ve seen describing the damage in dramatic terms that bait the clicks of people who are already predisposed to think negatively of AI.
And so the echo chamber resonates on.
That’s a lot of assumptions. I was thinking more in line with the environmental and cognitive impacts being studied. Also, let’s stop calling it AI, because that’s not what it is.
If anything I’m predisposed to not trust something if the very first thing that comes up, its name, is deceptive.
The term “AI” was first coined in 1956 at the Dartmouth workshop and covers a broad range of topics in computer science. Machine learning and language models most certainly do fall under that category.
Refusing to call LLMs “AI” looks to me like an instance of the AI effect in action, in which anything computers can do is no longer regarded as an example of “real” intelligence. It’s a goalpost shift.
Used to be that the Turing Test was a big deal. Or being able to beat a human chess grandmaster. Or a Go grandmaster, once chess was reliably being won by computers. Just the other day ChatGPT was able to generate a novel proof for an unsolved Erdos problem that mathematicians are now using as a basis for new discoveries. What’s the next goalpost?
This. This is the next goalpost. Reread what I was replying to.
Writing birthday cards and cheating on school assignments? It can already do that quite well, that’s a goalpost that’s been passed already.
I think your en an echo chamber.
Some of my social media is an echo chamber of that, but in the real world, almost everyone I talk to is impressed/amazed with it.
I’m kind of in the middle. I get that it is bad for the environment, but it’s had real economic impacts on my freelance work.
I’ve been able to use it to code stuff and self host it instead of paying a ballooning subscription per member pricing.
I know there could be security issues, it’s not an essential system and I have experience hosting in the cloud and securing servers.
54% are tired of hearing about it, so an article about it is in uplifting news?
We are uplifted by the fact the average Joe Public is finally clueing in to the fact that it’s all just snake oil, which is the first step to addressing the problem
There are snake oil artists using it and pushing it in many cases, but saying the whole thing is snake oil is dumb as shit. The core technology is already functional and useful in specific applications.
Machine learning is functional and useful in specific applications. “AI” is marketing snake oil.
By that metric, so is everything “Healthy” or “Environmentally Friendly”
GPT technology ( a small subset of ML ) does do many things really well, and that’s a problem because it’s hurting some people by doing those things well enough to cause them to lose their job, or at the very least making them worried about losing their job.
Don’t waste your energy, Lemmy is far beyond saving to reach a nuanced view on generative AI.
This is the opposite of uplifting.
It is uplifting to see resistance toward AI growing.
We need a downlifting news comm.
I think thats just “news”
I think that’s just the rest of Lemmy.
